Grindr fails to remove ethnicity filter after pledge to do so
-
So like the preference filter they have?
-
On some days I like black dick, and some other days I like middle eastern dick. What do I do now?
-
sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks. -
sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.But there is a natural preference to be with our own. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.
-
Grindr is trash where I am anyway.
-
sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.But there is a natural preference to be with our own. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.
There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?
Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?
-
I am sorry but I totally disagree. Filter criteria are absolutely not "racist". They are only filters helping to narrow down a earch radius based on personal criteria.
If the argument is that the "origin" or "ethnic" filter is racist than how about all the other filters such as cut/uncut; body type; age; weigh;…?
With that argumentation all filters in a search are "racist".
This discussion and "service reduction" of grindr s ridiculous. And it will not solve in any circumstance racist behavior!Just my two cents...
-
sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.But there is a natural preference to be with our own. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.
There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?
Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?
Look at the facial recognition studies. People are better at recognizing people of the same race.
If it weren't natural to want to be with your own, then why is it the same all over the world.
-
I find the discussion about the filter more interesting then the filter itself. Most of the the replies are respectful, what a nice change.
-
sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.But there is a natural preference to be with our own. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.
There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?
Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?
Look at the facial recognition studies. People are better at recognizing people of the same race.
If it weren't natural to want to be with your own, then why is it the same all over the world.
Again do the facial recognition studies suggest that the causality is "natural"?
-
political correctness gone crazy
-
All races prefer their own and countless studies prove this as do marriage records.
89% to 93% whites and asians respectively, with the others in between
That's really lazy analysis. You're not taking into account various forms of bias, social and legal prohibitions, the intersection of race with other factors.
-
It seems some people want to make everything about racism.
-
It seems some people want to make everything about racism.
So in order to not be accused of following the racism bandwagon, the reasonable conclusion is that the data you present support a "natural" preference?
-
Well, I provided reasons to back up my comment.
I say it's natural, as seen in the areas I already mentioned and more. You on the other hand use my examples and claim they are due to racism.
Blacks find it easier to recognize other blacks, white find it easier to recognize other whites, etc, etc, etc. Clearly, that must be racism to liberals.
Marriage certificates show that 89% - 93% marry their own race, so it must be racism to liberals.
It can't be natural, because that doesn't fit the liberal dogma.
A lilly white liberal chick can call a black woman a "nappy ass ho" and liberals say that's not racist.
Liberals dumb down their language and get "ghetto" when speaking to blacks, but that's not racist.
30 years ago, everyone wanted a "brown baby" but that's not racist.
Let's not forget the ever popular; "only whites can be racist".
-
Can you quote me where I said anything about racism before you brought it up?
You are a terrible commentator on pretty much anything because you fail to define the words you use even after someone asks you to do so. And that is disregarding the fact that you just tried to attribute to myself something that I did not say. Might wanna be more careful.
So to the topic at hand: What do you mean by "natural"? That it is not inherently bad? Sure no problem there.
Do you mean natural as in the dichotomy of nurture vs nature?
If so, the data you presented simply do not justify the use of the word. Simple, no?
The rest of the stuff that you blurted out are, again, completely irrelevant to what I just said, and is a consequence of you trying to find baaaad liberals/leftists to anyone who challenges anything you say. Good going dude…
-
Natural as in normal, ie when marriage certificates show a 10% deviation from wanting to be with our own. It's how you see Pakistani muslims ghettoizing themselves in the UK, and not just muslims in general. NYC also has this where orthodox jews cluster and from there they cluster into even smaller groups based on the type/branch of the religion they come from.
Natural as in the way we are wired, ie the facial recognition studies.
It has nothing to do with racism or any other BS liberals tend to claim in these discussions.
You have shown me absolutely nothing to prove your side. All you have done is claim that I am wrong and you are right.
-
Therefore you concede I did not mention racism and that you put words in my mouth?
"Natural as in the way we are wired" implies something inherent and/or genetic.
The data you present (with no sources but it does not make a difference) do not justify the conclusion you are trying to peddle as obvious.
You made the claim to begin with, therefore you are the one that has to prove it. Not the one who expresses doubt.
Its how argumentation works. If you do not like it, I suggest you stop commenting on issues that have nothing to do with your -it seems- favourite polarizing view of the world that everything is liberals vs conservatives.
-
You have no explanation, except that I am wrong.
At least I have the courage to put my point of view forward for scrutiny.
Take your head out of the sand, the world, especially in the last 15 years, is very much liberal vs conservative.
-
I do not have to have an explanation for something you claim, dude.
But that was scrutiny is. You make a claim, people express their reasonable doubts and then its on you to prove your point. Prove it then.
No honey, this is you turning every disagreement into a political "debate".
I get it, its an easy way for you to dismiss anyone that calls you on your baseless claims, but you have to grow out of it at some point, dont you think?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login